Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sentence in lead section

I have restored this sentence to the lead, about the SPLC's designation of ADF as a hate group. The lead section's core function is to summarize the article, and since the SPLC's designation is mentioned in the body of the article, and is fairly significant, I see no reason why the section should be taken out of the lead. Neutrality^talk 19:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You're correct about the policy, but you are totally wrong about SPLC. ADF is 25 years old. As you can see from the History section it has a long record of activity. The SPLC "designation" occurred very recently, only in 2017. The SPLC appearance in the article is brief and only a mention. A mere 2 sentences. I don't see how that can be described as "significant" by any objective evaluation. OTOH Blackstone takes up THREE PARAGRAPHS and is not in the lead. It's obvious that if three paragraphs of content fails a mention in the lead, then a topic that comprises 2 only sentences should definitely not be in the lead. The SPLC mention in the lead fails due weight: it fails MOS:LEADREL and per policy must be removed.– Lionel^(talk) 01:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC designation is highly significant and very reliably investigated and considered. The lead describes the organization as it currently exists, so the duration of the designation is not disqualifying. It's brief beacause...what else needs to be said? Details are to be found elsewhere. Would you be more comfortable if we referred to it repeatedly in the sections of article text that relate to it? I'm not sure that's really needed. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Compared to the voluminous coverage in RS of hundreds of ADFs legal cases, landmark precedents, legal defense of pro-life defendants, defense of students' free speech rights on college campuses, coverage in RS of programs such as Blackstone, Pulpit Freedom Sunday, fighting the War on Christmas, it can be said definitively that SPLC is a minor blip in the 25 year history of this organization. It's only ONE SOURCE compared to hundreds of sources covering other topics. While you may have a personal opinion that SPLC is significant, this is not borne out in RS. Thus... SPLC is undue compared to 24 years of coverage in RS of other topics. This is a textbook example of WP:LEADREL. – Lionel^(talk) 01:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Also it is important to note that ADF's organizational focus is divided between pro-life, traditional marriage and religious freedom. Trad. marriage represents less than a third of ADF's activity. When viewed objectively, SPLC is not significant. – Lionel^(talk) 01:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about SPLC. But the mainstream considers their research, judgment and methods to be above reproach. You're comparing apples and donuts. It isn't about how many things ADF has done. It's like if a Norwegian holds 9 world records in track, we can discuss each of the 9 separately, but the qualitative statement "Norwegian" still appears in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of this argument, I'll concede that "the mainstream considers their research, judgment and methods to be above reproach." However WP:DUE and WP:LEADREL are not concerned with the quality of the source. Those polices are concerned with the amount of coverage a topic receives. For lack of a better word, let's use quantity of coverage. The reason SPLC must be removed is based on "quantity" not "quality." – Lionel^(talk) 01:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already addressed that in my previous statement. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that Lionelt has the reason here, clearly presented why this statement doesn't belong in the lead of the article. Cilinhosan1 (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems pretty due to me. I'd keep it in. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I haven't seen you at this article before. Did you find out about this little discussion by checking Recent changes? – Lionel^(talk) 09:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist! I don't remember why. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with it being DUE. SPLC designation is a major thing. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is due. If reliable mainstream sources repeatedly mention this designation, it's a strong sign that it belongs in the lede. They do:[1][2][3][4][5][6] Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Are we set to call this consensus? Yes we are. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is it's prejudicial not neutral, and inappropriately weighted. The five sentences comprising the intro state what the organisation is, where it is headquartered, where the branch offices are, that the SPLC designate it a hate group, and that it is a leading legal interest group. Compare that to recent comments by Kevin McCarthy in which he said that they are one of the most respected public interest law firms in the country, with two cases pending before SCOTUS, but that they have been subjected to a smear campaign by a left-wing activist group i.e. SPLC. It's not appropriate for Wikipedia to include weaponized accusations in an intro - it's bad enough in the body, though noting them may be appropriate. 人族 (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it belongs. But perhaps as the last sentence. Why doesn't the present last sentence have a page number? Should it be attributed? Doug Weller talk 14:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm no fan of the ADF and their tactics, but I don't believe the SPLC content should be in the lead. Let's keep in mind that the SPLC is indiscriminate and subjective in their hate-group designations, frequently getting it wrong. They refuse to brand ANTIFA a hate group even though they have been named as a terrorist group by Homeland Security. SPLC hate-group designation is not a litmus and their credibility is dubious because they are biased. If it were the ACLU making that kind of statement, I'd agree it should be there. But, putting this content in the lead indicates the SPLC has the final and definitive say. Definitely deserves a mention in the article, but not in the lead. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Homeland Security has not said that Antifa is a hate group, and of course Antifa is not a group in any case. It's made up of all sorts of people, it's a movement. It appears you are here mainly to attack the SPLC which as you know we use in many articles. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. [7]. And before you say NJDHS isn't connected to Federal DHS, you'd be wrong about that, too. They are funded in part by Federal DHS. [8] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not Homeland Security, that's just a state office, funding doesn't make it Homeland Security. And where does it say terrorist? Doug Weller talk 17:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I can see you don't understand how state departments that do the job of federal departments are intertwined. Example: Consider your state bureau of investigation. Are they affiliated with and have the same authority as the Federal Bureau of Investigation? The answer is yes. Anything from within the U.S. that is labeled as extremist by a homeland security department is considered a domestic terrorist organization. That's common knowledge within government. I'm not suggesting we put anything in a Wikipedia article stating such, however, a fact is a fact regardless of whether Wikipedia's verifiability policy and threshold for inclusion sees it as a fact. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That's simply not true. And of course the word terrorist is your addition. Your source doesn't use it, Homeland hasn't called ANtifa terrorist, etc. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's not my addition, but you're free to not WP:AGF, it matters little to me. And, yes... what I wrote was completely true. I'm not one to just spout garbage and lies. I take it you've never worked in government? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think AGF would mean you ask me why I said that. You introduced the word saying Homeland Security had classified them as one. Have I missed something? You haven't produced a source for the word, just a link that doesn't say it's a terrorist group. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If Homeland had designated Antifa as a terrorist group, you'd expect them to state that publicly and to make arrests - why would they ignore terrorists? Of course it's not a group, it's a movement. A movement isn't a group. Doug Weller talk 07:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I was about to pull the SPLC sentence out of the lede until I read through this discussion. It seems that the discussion ended without consensus on this point. 人族 is correct that this is a weaponized accusation. I agree with -- ψλ that the information on the SPLC designation should be in the article, but not the lede. I believe it is blatant POV to put it in the lede. We may need some outside involvement here. SunCrow (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC designation is cited by many, many other reliable sources. This is commonly cited by these sources as a significant characteristic, to the point that it is now a defining characteristic.[9][10][11][12][13][etc.] The Human Rights Campaign has also described ADF as a hate group, although they don't use that exact phrase.[14] Even the endless stream of political opinions accept that this is significant, even if they don't agree that it's valid. This information is significant to any overview of the organization. As such, it is appropriate to include this in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Why mention the HRC? They're a misnamed activist organisation. Have they ever argued for religious rights for instance? As for the SPLC being cited by many sources, they're also frequently cited as a left-wing activist source. Really all depends on the bias of the journalist doing the piece, and most skew Left. 人族 (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion about the HRC is irrelevant, and I merely mentioned it to demonstrate that other sources also share this assessment. The SPLC is reliable, regardless of how it "skews", because having an ideological position doesn't make a source less reliable. Experienced editors should already know this. The SPLC has been cited by many other reliable sources for information about hate groups in general, and this group specifically. This is a valid demonstration that it is a reliable source per WP:USEBYOTHERS and repeated, tedious debate at WP:RSN. Since many sources have supported this description, this is clearly significant to the topic. Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion about the SPLC is irrelevant. They have been widely discredited as a reliable source. We could go through the exercise of digging up countless reliable SPLC discrediting sources, and it would be as irrelevant to this article as your insistence in putting such high value to their crap opinions. The SPLC is irrelevant to this article entirely. The SPLC is a hate group, repeating their opinions is simply spreading meaningless hate. Wikipedia is not your personal hate board, go to 4chan for all that. User:Anom 11:42, 25 July 2018 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c2:d80:1b00:95eb:62bc:fae7:9486 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2018‎

Here are, again, some reliable sources which "repeat their opinions":[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. You're right about one thing: my opinion that the SPLC is correct is irrelevant. These sources, however, all seem to think it's "relevant", and therefore Wikipedia should also treat it as relevant. Grayfell (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Repeating a thing doesn't give it credit, especially in the echo chamber of the American media circuit. Also a once reliable source is stripped of its credibility when it's been thoroughly and repeatedly discredited. The KKK or the democrat party for example used to widely repeated and considered credible, then society rejected their racism. That's how the SPLC started, by suing Democrats. But they have since lost their credibility. comment added by 2601:1C2:D80:1B00:95EB:62BC:FAE7:9486 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"Repeating a thing doesn't give it credit..." Ironic. Regardless, reliable sources discuss things even when some people don't like them. Wikipedia does the same. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you read WP:USEBYOTHERS? "For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims." There are hundreds if not thousands of reliable sources that refute the SPLC's opinions. By listing the SPLC's opinion in this article without reliably weighing their opinion gives undue credibility or weight to that exceeding biased minority view. Other measures or policies should be used in this case other than Used by Others. Repeating one side of an opinion doesn't validate that opinion. User: Some Long IP Address 14:22, 25 July 2018 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:D80:1B00:95EB:62BC:FAE7:9486 (talk)

This is an old discussion that seems to have gone off the rails, but may be worth revisiting. As the article is currently written, I think there's a WP:WEIGHT issue with including the SPLC label in the lede. The article's body is 30 paragraphs long, with one of the paragraphs devoted to the SPLC (3%). Meanwhile, the article's lede is 3 paragraphs long, with one of them devoted to the SPLC (33%). There are a few ways to fix this--expand the lede and make it more representative of the article's body, or expand the body to include more info on SPLC if in fact SPLC related content comprises ~33% of RS discussion of ADF (which is a possibility). As written, giving the SPLC this weight in the lede looks a bit Scarlett Lettery.Marquardtika (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: then I'm not sure why you removed SPLC material. I've restored it minus "; the group and its representatives have repeatedly engaged in defamation of and scare tactics against LGBT communities and persons in the USA." Doug Weller talk 13:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I removed some unsourced material and some material sourced to the SPLC and replaced it with better sourced material. Overall, I actually added to the article's word count about SPLC. With your restoration of the original material, we now have two somewhat redundant paragraphs about SPLC in the "History" section separated by a paragraph about Jeff Sessions. We also have the NBC News source used twice under difference reference names. I don't think we need to lean so heavily on SPLC's own publications when their activities are covered in secondary RS, like the Washington Post Magazine article that I added. Marquardtika (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Current controversy concerning Yale University's non--discriminatory policy

There's background to this, but the nutshell is that Yale clarified its policy stating that, quoting WAPO, "The school will give financial support only for public-interest fellowships with employers that do not discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation in hiring, school administrators announced this year."

" Yale’s nondiscrimination policy elicited a national response: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) accused the school of trying to “blacklist Christian organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom and to punish Yale students whose values or religious faith lead them to work there.” He announced a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee would investigate the school’s policies on distributing grants."

"Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) called for Yale’s federal funding to be yanked."

See[26] and [27] Doug Weller talk 16:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Lisa Biron, Take 3

• Previous talk page conversations: [28], [29].
• Interested parties: @Drmies, Wallyfromdilbert, PeterTheFourth, Doug Weller, Staszek Lem, Michaelmalak, Orangemike, and Think claimed:

It appears there was previous discussion supporting an on/off again section specific to this individual in the past. That material seems to have been excised somewhere along the way. Recent edits are adding her to the "People" section that specifies a loose inclusion criteria of people "currently or have been affiliated with ADF". In this instance the person seems to have been an "allied attorney" in some kind of honor circle, that was referred cases by the ADF. Several other entries in that list match this level of affiliation: Alan Seabaugh, Charles LiMandri, and Michael J. Juneau. I get that this looks like coatracking; but we probably need to be more specific on the inclusion criteria if that's the case or potentially re-visit the removed section. Kuru (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Kuru. Given the BLP, I believe this should be done as narrowly as possible. People that were on the board, got paid directly, etc. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't entirely understand the BLP issue, as the question is whether to include a person on a list of people related to an organization. The concern seems to be about a guilt by association for the organization, rather than for any person. I don't really think a list of people related to an organization is all that useful in general, but I think if a list is included, it should have a clear criteria for inclusion. I would be in favor of narrowing the list down to something more concrete, such as current board members, although I have no strong preference either way on a page about an organization as long as the criteria is clear. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Presumably, associating living persons with a group that may or may not be controversial. Any objections to "The following people are current or former ADF staff:"? That will eliminate the cloud of "allied attorneys." Kuru (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I would probably add "or board members" as I do not believe they are considered staff. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Balance is not undue weight

Regarding these changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&curid=1401587&diff=955227759&oldid=955225067

The prior editor tagged on what I think is unnecessary to the prior sentence about former U.S. Attorney General: "who is noted for his support of anti-gay policies and opposition to LGBT rights." To give balance, I added the sentence, "The SPLC hate group label has also been criticized by writers in major online media sources for including ADF and similar conservative organizations on the list with violent groups.[14][15][16][17][18]" The references are to articles in the Washington Post, New Yorker, USA Today, and National Review.

That explanatory sentence is necessary to balance out the bare assertion about ADF by the SPLC, which used to do work that everyone could applaud, but has started being looked at as unreliable in many sources. Wikipedia needs to change with the times and update what sources are acceptable. The SPLC's opinion, if printed, must be balanced with contrasting information or the entire section looks biased. Let readers make up their own mind after presenting articles from major sources. I thought that is what Wikipedia was about. Furthermore, how many citations does it take to become undue weight? It behooves us to add balance to every reference. I would be agreeable to removing 2-3 sources after than sentence, and I do not care which ones. The sentence needs to stay or the description that was added about the Attorney General, which is more about him (Republican, anti-gay) than about ADF, should go.

Thank you Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

I concur. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The SPLC statement is not a "bare assertion", which is obvious to anyone reading the citation from then, It is the result of their analysis of the ADF's activities, and is based on the SPLC's long history of evaluating hate groups of many types and many ideologies. The question of whether the SPLC is a reliable source has been brought up many times at RSN, and the organization has always been found to be reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Weird that a group which says gay people are pedophiles and supports literally criminalizing and imprisoning LGBTQ people would be deemed a "hate group." Unfathomable. I mean, whatever happened to the good old American tradition of burning witches, too? The ADF is just defending fundamentalist Christians' freedom to take other people's freedom away because their book of myths said so.

The challenge for you here is that the ADF believes that LGBTQ people are fundamentally lesser than other human beings, and has repeatedly worked to make and defend laws which enshrine this viewpoint into civil governance. That treating LGBTQ people in such a manner - whether imprisoning them, firing them, smearing them as dangerous pedophiles, barring them from fundamental civil rights - is increasingly unpopular and widely viewed as hateful... is not something Wikipedia can fix. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That is great and all, I even largely agree with you, but WP:NOTAFORUM applies here. PackMecEng (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

supports literally criminalizing and imprisoning LGBTQ people...The ADF is just defending fundamentalist Christians' freedom to take other people's freedom away because their book of myths said so...the ADF believes that LGBTQ people are fundamentally lesser than other human beings... Among other quotes, this is neither WP:CIVIL dialogue nor an accurate summary. I ask for NBSB to retract these comments; if it has a source, it would be in the article. Buffs (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course they're accurate and supported by the sources cited, so no, I'm not going to retract them. From the cited SPLC source, you have an ADF official celebrating India maintaining a criminal prohibition against homosexuals, an ADF lawyer writing an amicus brief to SCOTUS defending Texas' criminalization of homosexuals, and an ADF lawyer declaring that gay and lesbian people "desensitize and corrupt young minds ... for recruitment." That you don't like the truth about the ADF and its ilk is not relevant here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Freedom is not the same as legally mandating acceptance.
2. Your unnecessary and inflammatory remark about "book of myths" (regarding the Bible I would assume?) being the source of their alleged push to take other people's freedoms away is not cited in the given reference. Likewise, your assertion that they believe anyone to be a "lesser person" is also completely uncited.

Per WP:CIVIL, please retract. Buffs (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Please explain how supporting putting LGBT people in prison is "freedom." The "freedom" to take other people's freedom away because you don't like who and how they love?
2. That you don't think imprisoning LGBT people or accusing them of "desensitiz[ing] and corrupt[ing] young minds" is dehumanizing them (e.g. a "lesser person") speaks volumes.
3. The Bible is, indeed, a book of mythology - a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Be best. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Show me one citation on that page that says the Bible is their rationale for taking away the rights of others. The Bible isn't even mentioned. Buffs (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying that an explicitly-Christian organization isn't justifying their bigotry upon the Bible, and are just admitting that they are homophobic out of pure backwards ignorance or blind unadulterated hatred of that which is different? That's a heck of a self-own if you ask me. But we're getting off-topic into WP:NOTFORUM territory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep the comments WP:CIVIL, shall we? My objection is YOUR choice of words. You are accusing them of using the Bible to justify their position, but the sources do not back that up. It's really that simple and the other inflammatory verbiage just plain isn't necessary. Buffs (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The notes about Jeff Sessions belong on his article page, not shoe-horned into every other article happening to mention him. Actually I just checked his page and such descriptions aren't really noted at all. This is a big deal, and the ONUS is on those who want such an inclusion to gain consensus here on the talk page. Per this discussion, no such consensus exists, so I will remove the text until a proposed wording gains approval. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Then the ONUS is also on Ihaveadreamagain to gain consensus for their proposed addition to the lede, which they made on May 5. I have returned the article to the last stable version from March 15, which subsequently was unchanged for nearly two months. Any additions and changes should be discussed and gain consensus here first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I (mostly, see below) agree with this. Good edit. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Notwithstanding what Beyond My Ken stated about SPLC, their posts must be treated with special care - see the Reliable_Sources/Perennial Sources "As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." The current post is not "due weight" -- it is "undue weight" --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

Any additions and changes should be discussed and gain consensus here first. For someone who rails against bureaucracy, you sure seem to be advocating it when it's convenient. Saying that "The Southern Poverty Law Center designates the ADF as an anti-LGBTQ hate group." without also noting that there are a LOT of people who take exception to the SPLC's assessments or placing it within context (the group is politically opposed to many of the SPLC's activities) is undue weight. Buffs (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

the organization has always been found to be reliable no, they haven't. They have a LONG history of criticism on the topic: Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Controversies_regarding_hate_group_and_extremist_designations. Buffs (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What long-lived, active organization does not have a long history of criticism? Every time we mention the presidency of the US, the Catholic Church, any political party, do we add that it has been criticized in "major online media sources"? O3000 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

--- O3000, the same idea applies to putting the "hate group" designation in a group description. What long-standing organization that has been around over 20 years has not had much criticism from those who disagree with them. Doesn't Alliance Defending Freedom deserve the same treatment you are demanding for the SPLC? Regardless of the length of time an organization has been around, their critics should be in sub-paragraphs, not in a top description. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

The SPLC is a respected organization in identifying hate groups. Here is their report on the ADF.[30] Beware, it's scary. It's also considered a reliable source for WP, after numerous discussions. O3000 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

-- I really don't care to read their report and we shouldn't be doing independent research. We are not here to debate the topic of hate groups. This is not an advocacy exercise. This sentence belongs in the "Positions" section and not in the intro section: "The Southern Poverty Law Center designates the ADF as an anti-LGBTQ hate group.[9]" --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

OK, don't read it. The SPLC is a respected organization in identifying hate groups. This is WP:DUE in the body and important to include in the summary (i.e. lead). O3000 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess I missed WP:RESPECTED as a criteria for inclusion. Plenty of people find fault with the SPLC's analysis. Their justification of the ADF is based on their position in a 2003 court case...17 years ago... Buffs (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't bring fringe you-tubers to article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

John Stossel is hardly a "fringe you-tuber". He's a respected journalist. Buffs (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

1. 1. I agree we don't have to listen to what anyone says on YouTube -- but there are respected sources that say SPLC has changed and should no longer be taken at their word. Things have changed, wiki-friends!
2. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center
3. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312

−

1. 2. WP:Manual of Style/Lead Section states: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or 'lede' paragraph." The most important item about an organization that has been around for as many years as ADF has been, cannot be an opinion of another nonprofit organization, no matter how "respected" they are. Most people will read or scan the entry and will pick up that information from the article. The lead does not have a summary of the contents and you can see by looking at the headings that the lead is "misleading:" History; Positions; Finances; Blackstone Legal Fellowship; Day of Dialogue; Pulpit Freedom Sunday; Notable Cases; People; See also. The lead is poorly constructed, as it contains two paragraphs and one dangling misplaced sentence at the end.

If you are going to weigh in, please at least address #2. Thank you. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

Making Appropriate Edits to Paragraph

In my attempt to edit per the suggests of Objective300, I evidently went against the desires of Beyond My Ken --- and need direction for us.

May 15 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&diff=prev&oldid=956862471 Added The SPLC has also referred to ADF as a "prominent Christian legal powerhouse" founded by "30 prominent Christian leaders."[31]

Objective300 reversed, suggesting “If you're going to include this, the entire sentence must be included. Otherwise, it's a highly misleading take on what the SPLC was saying”

So, I added the rest of the sentence, noting “ I added the whole sentence as requested and clarified by putting "criticized" in the sentence to show the SPLC isn't favoring ADF.”

The SPLC has also criticized ADF as a "prominent Christian legal powerhouse" founded by "30 prominent Christian leaders in response to what they saw as "growing attacks on religious freedom,' the organization has an annual budget of more than $30 million, a staff of 44 in-house lawyers and 2,200 allied lawyers."[32]

Objective300 reversed my edit and stated “No. The original sentence you are pulling apart says the organization was supporting anti-gay bigots. You are making it sound like they are criticizing it for being for freedom and having a lot of lawyers.”

I made a new revision, realizing I that Objective300 was referring to the first sentence, not the second. So, I edited, noting: “Attempting to follow requested edit to add proper context to SPLC's criticism.”

The SPLC has also criticized ADF as a "prominent Christian legal powerhouse" that provided "advice to anti-gay bigots in Belize."[33]

Beyond My Ken reversed my edit and directed me to Talk. Here is the diff page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&curid=1401587&diff=956871242&oldid=956870606 I’m trying really hard to make quality, neutral edits. Is the last edit inappropriate for any reason?? There needs to be more than one sentence per paragraph. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

The problem is WP:SYNTHESIS. By combining information from different parts of the source, you've made it seem that the "powerhouse" comment has something to do with the Belize comment, which it doesn't. That effect of that is to water-down the criticism (that they provided "advice to anti-gay bigots") by prefacing it with "prominent Christian legal powerhouse". That's SYNTH, since the article did not do that. Further, the article never calls AFD a "prominent Christian legal powerhouse". It says it was founded by "30 prominent Christian leaders", and that the firm is "a powerhouse with an annual budget of more than $30 million." The phrase "prominent Christian legal powerhouse" never appears in the article, it is your construction alone, and distorts what the article says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That phrase does appear in the article on page 5 of the PDF in the context as written, in contiguous paragraphs. Please reread. You must have missed it. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/downloads/publication/splc-report-dangerous-liaisons.pdf

" Though Belize is tiny, the battle has attracted numerous American groups — including the prominent Christian legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — on the pro-criminalization side, providing advice to anti-gay bigots in Belize. The ADF is a serious organization. Founded in 1994 by 30 prominent Christian leaders in response to what they saw as “growing attacks on religious freedom,”

--Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

• Sorry, my error. Thanks for pointing it out. My first point remains, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank, I appreciate that retraction. However, your first comment is this: "By combining information from different parts of the source, you've made it seem that the "powerhouse" comment has something to do with the Belize comment, which it doesn't." The Belize comment is in the same sentence as the "prominent Christian legal powerhouse" statement, so your first point is incorrect. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

It sounds like you’re trying to find something positive to say about ADF from the SPLC. On the Nation of Islam, the SPLC says: “one of the wealthiest and best-known organizations in black America”. Sounds positive in the same manner. It then goes on to say “Its theology of innate black superiority over whites and the deeply racist, antisemitic and anti-LGBT rhetoric…”. The SPLC is not saying anything positive about either. It’s pointing out their abilities to spread hate. If you’re looking for something that talks to how powerful the ADF is without a negative context, I think you’ll need to find another source. O3000 (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, my bad. I'm restoring your edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Nope" is particularly unhelpful as an edit summary. More than one organization describes it as a "Christian legal powerhouse" (literally in the WaPo headline...no need to omit a valid source or remove valid naming conventions). I don't object to the edit of the article (reasonable people can disagree), but I do object to the manner in which it was done and the lack of a valid edit summary. Buffs (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Nope" = "Better before" = "Not an improvement", all perfectly reasonable and succinct responses to bad edits. It's fine the way it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • We should not use headlines as sources. See this current RSN discussion[34] and the Snopes discussion there. Hell, I used to write headlines for the Miami Herald and I was never a journalist. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• "We don't shouldn't use headlines as sources"...really? What policy is that exactly? We are quoting that two disparate groups both describe something the same way. THe source is the Washington Post. Buffs (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you can misrepresent what I wrote that you replied to so easily, I don't know what to say as I can't explain something I never wrote. It's worrying. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Should not" vs "do not" is not a significant difference, IMHO, but I changed it...my point remains and is still unanswered. You're just being pedantic. Buffs (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller's point -- one that he apparently knows from real-life experience -- is that the headline is not actually a part of an article. It's not written by the journalist who wrote the article, it's written by someone else entirely, with the purpose of attracting the eye of the reader while summarizing the article, hopefully with a modicum of accuracy. The spread between the two is greatest in tabloids and less so in broadsheets, but in any circumstance, if the article says X and the headline says Y, the reliable source is the article, not the headline. If the article accurately represents the article, so much the better, but relying on headlines for information that's not in the article is just a plain bad idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Since when is WP:OR permitted? Did WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT suddenly become policy? The Washington Post chose to publish it, period. All that it was being used for is to substantiate that more than one organization called it the same thing. I'm sure if I look I can find a dozen others. That you are fighting it based solely on WP:FROMMYEXPERIENCE is exceptionally telling. We get it. You don't like the ADF. Fine. That doesn't mean that WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV go out the window. I've been more than reasonable here and good faith edits are met with undo and "nope...that's a bad edit. It was fine the way it was". Your position is intractable and unreasonable. You do not WP:OWN this page. Buffs (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're raving about, but I'm certainly not going to engage you in any more discussion to give you a chance to do any more of it.

Nobody "owns" this article, but any Wikipedia editor can revert bad edits, and I will continue to do so when I see them. If you don't want to be reverted, don't make bad edits. There, rave about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There, rave about that Taunting isn't appropriate. Dismissing what I view as legitimate concerns as "ranting" and "raving" are inherently uncivil replies to dissent.

I'm certainly not going to engage you in any more discussion You call this discussion? It's condescending and uncivil lecturing, something that's been brought up more than once.

If you don't want to be reverted, don't make bad edits I see, so I can just revert you because I view it as a "bad edit" (see how poor that logic is?)!

I request you retract this uncivil behavior and/or offer a compromise. "It's my way or the highway" is inherently uncivil and so are your replies. Buffs (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We have WP:HEADLINE now. Is there anything left that supports your position? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Creating an essay (now labeled accordingly) doesn't suddenly create a policy/guideline; it doesn't mean we've decided as a community that headlines are meaningless. Likewise, this particular reference is merely to indicate that disparate groups have decided to call them a specific term. Buffs (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINE was not created for this article. It is a result of [35]. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I never said it was. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Christian legal powerhouse" is not a contrast with the description of them as a hate group. Buffs' proposed version sets it up as one, however, with the "Even as..." phrasing, suggesting that there is something contradictory about it. There is not - the ADF can be both a hate group and a Christian legal powerhouse. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I see no contrast intended here, just a transition between paragraphs. I'm not against different phrasing, but if we're going to include the disparaging quotes of a single organization with a spotty history on accuracy AND give them twice as much screen space as their 9/9 successful Supreme Court cases, certainly we can include a widespread, neutral description of them. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Day of Truth

How do these figures help the article? There's no context. How many schools are there in the US? How many pupils? Were these all private schools, perhaps religious - or were many of them public schools? Did the parents of these children all belong to the same organisation and keep their children out of school? I don't think they belong here or at Day of Dialogue. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If included at all, it would seem to me that the vastly higher Day of Silence stats would also need to be included to put the numbers in context. But, both sets of stats are self-reported and unreliable. O3000 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

When this first came up, I went looking for content from independent sources which would properly contextualize the Days of Truth. What I found was that everything was ultimately sourced from information released by the ADF, there was no truly independent information. The best articles, while using ADF info for Days of Truth, at least noted it as having been created as a counter to the (apparently much more widespread) Days of Silence. I also found that the Days of Truth was a problematic project which has moved from the ADF to other organizations and then back again when it proved to be too controversial and confrontational. Absent real data about the Days of Truth, doing anything more then simply noting its existence and something of its history would violate NPOV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's self-sourced. It was their event. Enough clarity that it's their claimed figures is there. Now, if we're assessing notability, perhaps that's a valid point here (reasonable people can disagree), but I'm not seeing anyone making that argument in this thread. Buffs (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't report as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, what organizations say about themselves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

And we didn't do so here:

"According to ADF, over 1,100 students in 350 schools participated in the first Day of Truth."

Buffs (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Nor do you provide any context for that statement. In fact, that's a pitifully small number of students in a tiny, tiny number of schools, considering that the US has something like 89,000 elementary schools and 24,000 high schools, with about 56.5 millions students in them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What context is needed? The claims and figures stand on their own. GLSEN makes WAY more outrageous, vague claims, but no one is calling their results "pitifully small". To be blunt, you have an atrocious double standard here. I'm an advocate for inclusion of both. It isn't a surprise that you're only for the exclusion of one. Lastly, this isn't a post-college football game fan-rush from the stands. The issue brought up was that it shouldn't be in WP-voice as a statement of fact when it's the organization's claim. The fact is: it wasn't, so, you decided to ignore that and toss out "psh, it's pathetic, is what it is". More WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Not helpful...again... Buffs (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but you didn't include GLSEN numbers here. If you have a problem with another article, take it there. And false claims of WP:IDONTLIKEIT are WP:PAs. O3000 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but you didn't include GLSEN numbers here. You know what? You're right, I didn't bring it up because I assumed that, since BMK brought it up, it would be simple enough for you to look up.

• Sentence at Day of Silence: "GLSEN states that hundreds of thousands of students at more than 8,000 schools participated in the 2008 Day of Silence."
• Sentence here: "According to ADF, over 1,100 students in 350 schools participated in the first Day of Truth."

It's practically a 1-for-1 balanced approach. Both clearly site that it's the numbers that the org publishes. "You aren't comparing it to every school so there isn't any context" isn't a requirement of any kind. I can point to dozens of articles about many other student organizations that make similar claims without the context of how many schools are in the US; all cite their own organization and are WAY more definitive than this.

• Afterschool_Alliance "The Afterschool Alliance has more than 25,000 afterschool program partners and its publications reach more than 65,000 interested individuals every month."
• Key Club "Key Club exists on more than 5,000 high school campuses"
• International Thespian Society "Membership currently stands at approximately 139,000 student members across 5,000 schools."

Demanding its removal on those grounds is literally making up [inconsistent] policy (much like above) solely because you don't like the organization. It's very much WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Buffs (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop making PAs. WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of PAs that never happened. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is my assessment of your logic, not you personally. Buffs (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

How can you say IDONTLIKEIT is based on content not person when it contains the word "I"? Also, you falsely claimed "solely because you don't like the organization". Stop making PAs. O3000 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to read up on what PA is, not your subjective opinion on what it is. My assessment is based on the words chosen here and, largely, not about you as a person (which is what a personal attack would be). My critique is of your specific logic (among others) falling into the category of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As such, yes, it specifies that it is your opinions expressed here are illogical/inconsistent. That doesn't mean you are personally a bad person, just that I believe you are wrong here. As for "because you don't like the organization", you also said "The SPLC is a respected organization in identifying hate groups. Here is their report on the ADF. Beware, it's scary." It seems to me that you've decided to agree with the SPLC, ergo, my assumption. Feel free to clarify. In the meantime, what you're currently doing is attempting to poison the well/gaslight and it isn't appreciated. Buffs (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. FWIW, the vast majority of all event attendance estimates are self-reported. Someone from the organization picks a number, and they all agree to report that as the official crowd estimate. Sometimes there will also be a police estimate. Very rarely will statisticians or other experts get involved to count heads in event photos. But it does happen.

  For these events the self-reported numbers may be all that’s available. What’s more telling in this case is that apparently the numbers were waning so the organizers gave up altogether. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. No reason to exclude then as we made sure we openly cited the source. Buffs (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)